| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| The King Of Karaoke |
Posted - 11/05/2004 : 15:02:52
I'm more of a fan of posting news articles as opposed to posting one mans view but... I am a big fan of firing up the forum!
Kerry Won. Here are the Facts.
by Greg Palast
11/05/04 "TomPaine.com" -- I know you don't want to hear it. You can't face one more hung chad. But I don't have a choice. As a journalist examining that messy sausage called American democracy, it's my job to tell you who got the most votes in the deciding states. Tuesday, in Ohio and New Mexico, it was John Kerry.
Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. At 1:05 a.m. Wednesday morning, CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. The exit polls were later combined with—and therefore contaminated by—the tabulated results, ultimately becoming a mirror of the apparent actual vote. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.
So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know.
Here's why. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted. [See TomPaine.com, "An Election Spoiled Rotten," November 1.]
Once again, at the heart of the Ohio uncounted vote game are, I'm sorry to report, hanging chads and pregnant chads, plus some other ballot tricks old and new.
The election in Ohio was not decided by the voters but by something called "spoilage." Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of the vote is voided, just thrown away, not recorded. When the bobble-head boobs on the tube tell you Ohio or any state was won by 51 percent to 49 percent, don't you believe it ... it has never happened in the United States, because the total never reaches a neat 100 percent. The television totals simply subtract out the spoiled vote.
Whose Votes Are Discarded?
And not all votes spoil equally. Most of those votes, say every official report, come from African-American and minority precincts. (To learn more, click here.)
We saw this in Florida in 2000. Exit polls showed Gore with a plurality of at least 50,000, but it didn't match the official count. That's because the official, Secretary of State Katherine Harris, excluded 179,855 spoiled votes. In Florida, as in Ohio, most of these votes lost were cast on punch cards where the hole wasn't punched through completely—leaving a 'hanging chad,'—or was punched extra times. Whose cards were discarded? Expert statisticians investigating spoilage for the government calculated that 54 percent of the ballots thrown in the dumpster were cast by black folks. (To read the report from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, click here .)
And here's the key: Florida is terribly typical. The majority of ballots thrown out (there will be nearly 2 million tossed out from Tuesday's election) will have been cast by African American and other minority citizens.
So here we go again. Or, here we don't go again. Because unlike last time, Democrats aren't even asking Ohio to count these cards with the not-quite-punched holes (called "undervotes" in the voting biz). Nor are they demanding we look at the "overvotes" where voter intent may be discerned.
Ohio is one of the last states in America to still use the vote-spoiling punch-card machines. And the Secretary of State of Ohio, J. Kenneth Blackwell, wrote before the election, “the possibility of a close election with punch cards as the state’s primary voting device invites a Florida-like calamity.”
But this week, Blackwell, a rabidly partisan Republican, has warmed up to the result of sticking with machines that have a habit of eating Democratic votes. When asked if he feared being this year's Katherine Harris, Blackwell noted that Ms. Fix-it's efforts landed her a seat in Congress.
Exactly how many votes were lost to spoilage this time? Blackwell's office, notably, won't say, though the law requires it be reported. Hmm. But we know that last time, the total of Ohio votes discarded reached a democracy-damaging 1.96 percent. The machines produced their typical loss—that's 110,000 votes—overwhelmingly Democratic.
The Impact Of Challenges
First and foremost, Kerry was had by chads. But the Democrat wasn't punched out by punch cards alone. There were also the 'challenges.' That's a polite word for the Republican Party of Ohio's use of an old Ku Klux Klan technique: the attempt to block thousands of voters of color at the polls. In Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida, the GOP laid plans for poll workers to ambush citizens under arcane laws—almost never used—allowing party-designated poll watchers to finger individual voters and demand they be denied a ballot. The Ohio courts were horrified and federal law prohibits targeting of voters where race is a factor in the challenge. But our Supreme Court was prepared to let Republicans stand in the voting booth door.
In the end, the challenges were not overwhelming, but they were there. Many apparently resulted in voters getting these funky "provisional" ballots—a kind of voting placebo—which may or may not be counted. Blackwell estimates there were 175,000; Democrats say 250,000. Pick your number. But as challenges were aimed at minorities, no one doubts these are, again, overwhelmingly Democratic. Count them up, add in the spoiled punch cards (easy to tally with the human eye in a recount), and the totals begin to match the exit polls; and, golly, you've got yourself a new president. Remember, Bush won by 136,483 votes in Ohio.
Enchanted State's Enchanted Vote
Now, on to New Mexico, where a Kerry plurality—if all votes are counted—is more obvious still. Before the election, in TomPaine.com, I wrote, "John Kerry is down by several thousand votes in New Mexico, though not one ballot has yet been counted."
How did that happen? It's the spoilage, stupid; and the provisional ballots.
CNN said George Bush took New Mexico by 11,620 votes. Again, the network total added up to that miraculous, and non-existent, '100 percent' of ballots cast.
New Mexico reported in the last race a spoilage rate of 2.68 percent, votes lost almost entirely in Hispanic, Native American and poor precincts—Democratic turf. From Tuesday's vote, assuming the same ballot-loss rate, we can expect to see 18,000 ballots in the spoilage bin.
Spoilage has a very Democratic look in New Mexico. Hispanic voters in the Enchanted State, who voted more than two to one for Kerry, are five times as likely to have their vote spoil as a white voter. Counting these uncounted votes would easily overtake the Bush 'plurality.'
Already, the election-bending effects of spoilage are popping up in the election stats, exactly where we'd expect them: in heavily Hispanic areas controlled by Republican elections officials. Chaves County, in the "Little Texas" area of New Mexico, has a 44 percent Hispanic population, plus African Americans and Native Americans, yet George Bush "won" there 68 percent to 31 percent.
I spoke with Chaves' Republican county clerk before the election, and he told me that this huge spoilage rate among Hispanics simply indicated that such people simply can't make up their minds on the choice of candidate for president. Oddly, these brown people drive across the desert to register their indecision in a voting booth.
Now, let's add in the effect on the New Mexico tally of provisional ballots.
"They were handing them out like candy," Albuquerque journalist Renee Blake reported of provisional ballots. About 20,000 were given out. Who got them?
Santiago Juarez who ran the "Faithful Citizenship" program for the Catholic Archdiocese in New Mexico, told me that "his" voters, poor Hispanics, whom he identified as solid Kerry supporters, were handed the iffy provisional ballots. Hispanics were given provbisional ballots, rather than the countable kind "almost religiously," he said, at polling stations when there was the least question about a voter's identification. Some voters, Santiago said, were simply turned away.
Your Kerry Victory Party
So we can call Ohio and New Mexico for John Kerry—if we count all the votes.
But that won't happen. Despite the Democratic Party's pledge, the leadership this time gave in to racial disenfranchisement once again. Why? No doubt, the Democrats know darn well that counting all the spoiled and provisional ballots will require the cooperation of Ohio's Secretary of State, Blackwell. He will ultimately decide which spoiled and provisional ballots get tallied. Blackwell, hankering to step into Kate Harris' political pumps, is unlikely to permit anything close to a full count. Also, Democratic leadership knows darn well the media would punish the party for demanding a full count.
What now? Kerry won, so hold your victory party. But make sure the shades are down: it may be become illegal to demand a full vote count under PATRIOT Act III.
I used to write a column for the Guardian papers in London. Several friends have asked me if I will again leave the country. In light of the failure—a second time—to count all the votes, that won't be necessary. My country has left me.
Greg Palast, contributing editor to Harper's magazine, investigated the manipulation of the vote for BBC Television's Newsnight. The documentary, "Bush Family Fortunes," based on his New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, is now available on DVD. View a clip at http://www.gregpalast.com/bff-dvd.htm
------------------------------------- |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| VoVat |
Posted - 11/10/2004 : 19:05:38
Helpp staamp owt illiterassee!
"Signature quotes are so lame." --Nathan |
| n/a |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 16:26:57
liter-arse-y
Frank Black ate my hamster |
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 15:37:20
Read Icculus. |
| floop |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 15:37:07
quote:
Originally posted by PixieSteve
floopy woopy see my post, you big fat spastic.
sorry PixieStev, i don't read good eaither.
ist es möglich für ein quesadilla skrotum zu lecken? beim sprechen der quesadillas von LBF, ja. ja in der tatheheheheheheehehee! |
| floop |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 15:33:41
making fun of speling and grammer is rediculous
ist es möglich für ein quesadilla skrotum zu lecken? beim sprechen der quesadillas von LBF, ja. ja in der tatheheheheheheehehee! |
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 15:26:50
I like your new spelling, floop.
I've been stuck on 'setistics' since about 1995 because of a stats prof with speech impediment, 70's shirts and a bad combover.
"MATH 353: Stastics."
I like it.
Thanks. |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 15:23:19
floopy woopy see my post, you big fat spastic. |
| floop |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 15:01:05
you are
ist es möglich für ein quesadilla skrotum zu lecken? beim sprechen der quesadillas von LBF, ja. ja in der tatheheheheheheehehee! |
| BLT |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 14:55:34
quote:
Originally posted by floop
if you're talking about sheer number of votes, and not a stastic, then the population factor does affect the stastic, bitch. the "stastic" being, largest # of votes..
Actually it's spelled "spastic". |
| darwin |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 14:46:07
It does affect the interpretation of the statistic. People are claiming Bush got a mandate because more people for him than any other candidate, but that ignores that there are now more eligible voters than ever before (Kerry is 2nd and Gore is 3rd, I believe). As someone said elsewhere a more meaningful statistic would be per capita votes. |
| floop |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 14:44:00
if you're talking about sheer number of votes, and not a stastic, then the population factor does affect the stastic, bitch. the "stastic" being, largest # of votes..
ist es möglich für ein quesadilla skrotum zu lecken? beim sprechen der quesadillas von LBF, ja. ja in der tatheheheheheheehehee! |
| LBF1976 |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 14:37:08
I don't think the rise in population "effects the stastic"
More people voted in 1960 I believe...
(affects vs effects... no beard, no grammar)
Floops quesedillas zijn te vergelijken met het likken van fatsige Albert's aars nadat hij een fles laxeermiddel heeft leeggedronken. |
| floop |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 14:33:13
don't you think the rise in population effects the "highest popular vote in history" stastic?
ist es möglich für ein quesadilla skrotum zu lecken? beim sprechen der quesadillas von LBF, ja. ja in der tatheheheheheheehehee! |
| BLT |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 12:55:05
quote:
Originally posted by VoVat
How do we know that the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't been on the ballot?
I voted for Nader in '00. No way would I have voted for Gore. Tipper sealed the deal in that regard. |
| Dave Noisy |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 12:25:14
Thanks Erebus..any *can* be abused, but at least there's something with paper..
re: Nader, of course, would they vote at all if there were no Nader..?
 "Live life like you're gonna die...because you are." - William Shatner, You'll Have Time / Has Been |
| darwin |
Posted - 11/06/2004 : 18:19:54
That's why I left it as a question. I'm willing to believe that at least 600 of the Florida Nader voters would have voted for Gore if Nader wasn't on the ballot, but I don't know that. |
| VoVat |
Posted - 11/06/2004 : 14:58:34
How do we know that the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't been on the ballot?
"Signature quotes are so lame." --Nathan |
| Erebus |
Posted - 11/06/2004 : 14:15:59
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Clinton never got even 50% of the popular vote, and no Dem has received over 50% since Carter in 1976, and that was what, 51%? Were it not for Perot in 1992, there would have been no President Clinton.
Or if there was no Perot, Clinton would have had over 50% of vote. Also, if there had been no Nader, would Gore have been President?
I'm not sure what your point is.
Just wanted to point out that it's been almost thirty years since a Dem got 50%. I think the conventional wisdom is that without Perot, Bush Sr would have won, and without Nader, Gore would have. Given how close elections have been for some time, Bush's victory looks pretty good. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 11/06/2004 : 14:09:34
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
Hey Erebus - how do you feel about a paperless balloting system?
Don't trust it. All systems will be abused and paperless will be easily abused. |
| VoVat |
Posted - 11/06/2004 : 12:43:43
quote:
The Gahanna precint near Columbus reported over 9000 votes for Bush - only 844 people are registered.
Isn't "Gehenna" another name for Hell? Pretty appropriate, isn't it?
quote:
population must have increased in the USA since 1984. maybe enough to make the comparison with reagan's record misleading?
Probably. For this kind of statistic to mean anything, it would have to be made on a per capita basis.
"Signature quotes are so lame." --Nathan |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 11/06/2004 : 11:34:18
population must have increased in the USA since 1984. maybe enough to make the comparison with reagan's record misleading? |
| darwin |
Posted - 11/06/2004 : 11:21:42
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Clinton never got even 50% of the popular vote, and no Dem has received over 50% since Carter in 1976, and that was what, 51%? Were it not for Perot in 1992, there would have been no President Clinton.
Or if there was no Perot, Clinton would have had over 50% of vote. Also, if there had been no Nader, would Gore have been President?
I'm not sure what your point is. |
| SpudBoy |
Posted - 11/06/2004 : 09:35:58
News from Ohio on this:
The Gahanna precint near Columbus reported over 9000 votes for Bush - only 844 people are registered. One poll monitor observed over 3400 miscast votes for Kerry go to bush on ONE MACHINE.
Look - I don't like either one of the candidates, but these were both places where the Diebold machines were in use. I would be just as freaked had it swung the other way with this sort of chicanery.
I'm tired of the politics too, but that's what the world runs on, and I am committed to swimming in it from here on out, tired of it or not. Change doesn't come through the TV remote.
I won't get over it or get used to it when "it" is unethical, criminal behaviour. When this shit happened in Texas in 2002 the Election Commissioner went to jail. We can't just roll over.
*festoon* |
| Dave Noisy |
Posted - 11/06/2004 : 09:23:56
heh - i sorta feel the same today: if there were no Kerry, Bush wouldn't be in power.
I personally feel the Dems picked up the wrong candidate...the differences between the two weren't much. (And even more interesting if you factor in the Skull & Bones thing.hehehe)
As for this article...i dunno... The guy who runs Diebold was quoted as saying 'i will help ensure Bush wins Ohio'.....and guess which was the most contested state, and a place of electronic balleting..?
Hey Erebus - how do you feel about a paperless balloting system?
 Join the Cult of the Flying Pigxies - I'm A Believer! |
| Erebus |
Posted - 11/06/2004 : 08:47:49
quote:
Originally posted by Jason
I wonder if it's floating in the consciousness of anyone close to the Bush Adminstration (or Bush himself) that in both Presidential elections he took part in Bush only won by the slimmest of margins. He's never enjoyed an immediately clear victory -- meaning one that can actually be called on Election Night -- for the Presidency, like a Reagan or a Clinton has.
GW Bush now holds the record for the highest popular vote total a Presidential candidate has ever recieved. And who's at #2? John Kerry, with only 3.5 million votes less. They both beat the record set by Ronald Reagan in '84. Bush had more voters vote in opposition to him than any Presidential victor ever.
That's something to consider if you ever think America's voters are too right-wing.
Clinton never got even 50% of the popular vote, and no Dem has received over 50% since Carter in 1976, and that was what, 51%? Were it not for Perot in 1992, there would have been no President Clinton. |
| Jason |
Posted - 11/05/2004 : 23:37:01
I wonder if it's floating in the consciousness of anyone close to the Bush Adminstration (or Bush himself) that in both Presidential elections he took part in Bush only won by the slimmest of margins. He's never enjoyed an immediately clear victory -- meaning one that can actually be called on Election Night -- for the Presidency, like a Reagan or a Clinton has.
GW Bush now holds the record for the highest popular vote total a Presidential candidate has ever recieved. And who's at #2? John Kerry, with only 3.5 million votes less. They both beat the record set by Ronald Reagan in '84. Bush had more voters vote in opposition to him than any Presidential victor ever.
That's something to consider if you ever think America's voters are too right-wing. |
| Daisy Girl |
Posted - 11/05/2004 : 22:48:08
Wow KOK this is troubling on so many levels...
Thank you for bringing this article to our attention.
I can't believe that Patriot Act III stuff.
The Ballot fraud stuff doesn't suprise me... but I am glad you shared this info.
I demand a recount!!!!!!
http://www.campervanbeethoven.com/gearstolen/ |
| n/a |
Posted - 11/05/2004 : 19:35:55
it's the title of the article erebus, KoK introduces the whole thing with a this is opinion statement, quit nit-picking
( )
Frank Black ate my hamster |
| Erebus |
Posted - 11/05/2004 : 19:15:34
That "just a title" purports to describe the paragraphs that follow. To suggest that compares to FB as king is disingenuous. |
| VoVat |
Posted - 11/05/2004 : 18:28:44
quote:
The title is: "Kerry Won. Here are the Facts."
That's just a title. Sort of like how I've never seen an actual king in the "The King Holds Court" thread.
"Signature quotes are so lame." --Nathan |
| n/a |
Posted - 11/05/2004 : 17:38:34
post a toga picture then
it's the only way
()
Frank Black ate my hamster |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 11/05/2004 : 17:35:55
I kinda wish we could have a break from this political stuff for awhile.
 "Join the Cult of Frank 2.0 / And you'll be enlightened (free for 1.x members)" |
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 11/05/2004 : 17:06:45
quote:
Originally posted by The King Of Karaoke
I'm more of a fan of posting news articles as opposed to posting one mans view but... I am a big fan of firing up the forum!
This war, it will be just like the War on Drugs. It will be potent and effective and our objectives will be clear. The nation had a nasty drug problem and we declared a war on drugs and spent billions over many years and now you can't buy drugs anymore. It will be just like that.
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 11/05/2004 : 16:56:26
The title is: "Kerry Won. Here are the Facts."
|
| n/a |
Posted - 11/05/2004 : 15:43:45
He did say it was opinion rather than fact, was no pretense otherwise.
And most so called facts I see on here are conjecture, with strong bias. You can pull up a credible looking article on almost everything that will represent your viewpoint.
Frank Black ate my hamster |
|
|
